Sigma 70-200mm 2.8D EX APO DG HSM ???

[Jamie.RN]

I have a few questions about the Sigma 70-200 2.8D EX APO DG HSM.

1. Since the introduction of the newer Macro version of this exact lens, can we expect a price drop in this one? If so, I wonder when the online retailers will begin refelcting the new price?

2. The HSM aspect of this lens will allow for quick focusing, right? I'll be using this lens at the greyhound track and for action shots of my own greys in my back yard.

3. Is 200mm enough to get some decent close shots at a zoo?

4.. I've seen some example photos taken with this lens at PBase, but does anyone have any additional photos that they can share here?


That's all I can think of for now. I just want to be very confident about buying this lens before I shell out the $750 bucks.

Thanks so mu ch for your help!!! Jamie ;)

[Jason25]

Jamie,

1. I think that will happen, I've already seen them dip down to $699 new on ebay.

2. That's correct. I haven't used a Sigma HSM lens, but if it's as fast as my AF-S lens, then it's quite fast!

3. Depends on how close you can get to the animals, though you can always add a teleconverter and get up to 400mm at f5.6, which is plenty usable :D

4. I don't, sorry :)

[George Riehm]

The non DG version is also at $699 on sigmaforless.com as well, but the new DG version is only $724, I'm not sure that it's worth the savings, as the DG coatings seem to be pretty effective on dSLR's.

This is not a macro lens, and Jamie.RN may be confusing it with the 70-300 APO DG Macro. Both the old and new versions have HSM, which is very (very) quick and quiet.

I've had very good results with both of my Sigmas and wouldn't hesitate to buy the 70-200 f/2.8 EX DG HSM (as I plan to). I wish they would have offered HSM on the 24-70 f/2.8 which is still pretty darn fast on a D70, but it can be a little noisy.

I have used my Sigma 18-125 DC at the zoo, and rarely needed more than 110mm, so 200mm should be more than enough.

Photozone compares it favorably to the much vaunted Canon L equivalent. Which is blasphamy on a Canon oriented site. So fairly high praise indeed.

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/sigma_70200_28/index.htm

You won't find a better 70-200 f/2.8 for under $1100, and then only marginally better.

[tekriter]

George - there's a new version that was just announced a couple of days ago with a much shorter close-focusing distance. I think that's what is being referred to as the "new macro version".

[George Riehm]

George - there's a new version that was just announced a couple of days ago with a much shorter close-focusing distance. I think that's what is being referred to as the "new macro version".


Thanks. Just found it on thier website. Released 3 days ago. Wow, quite a difference in min focus. Hopefully they further improved an already great lens.

[Jason25]

I'm surprised they didn't give it OS as well, though.

[coldrain]

Photozone compares it favorably to the much vaunted Canon L equivalent. Which is blasphamy on a Canon oriented site. So fairly high praise indeed.

...

You won't find a better 70-200 f/2.8 for under $1100, and then only marginally better.
Color Foto magazine tested the Sigma AF f2.8 70-200mm APO DG HSM, Nikon Af-S VR Nikkor f2.8 70-200 G ED and Canon EF f2.8 70-200mm L IS USM.

The Sigma performed better than the Nikkor at 200mm, and it equaled the Canon in their test results. All 3 lenses are very close. Of course the results say nothing about the colour of the photos.

Nikon D70s (f2.8/f5.6 (Sigma | Nikkor)):
70mm
Line pairs per image height: 921/955 | 953/972
Contrast averaged: 93/90% | 94/97%
Distortion: 0.4% | 0.4%
Vignetting: 0.3/0.2 f-stops | 0.3/0.4 f-stops

135mm
Line pairs per image height: 929/1005 | 926/967
Contrast averaged: 94/88% | 94/90%
Distortion: 0.2% | 0.2%
Vignetting: 0.3/0.2 f-stops | 0.5/0.5 f-stops

200mm
Line pairs per image height: 916/983 | 896/943
Contrast averaged: 92/90% | 93/85%
Distortion: 0.4% | 0.5%
Vignetting: 0.6/0.2 f-stops | 0.8/0.8 f-stops

Canon 20D(f2.8/f5.6 (Sigma | Canon)):
70mm
Line pairs per image height: 995/1019 | 999/1014
Contrast averaged: 100/89% | 100/89%
Distortion: 1.2% | 0.3%
Vignetting: 0.2/0.1 f-stops | 0.3/0.1 f-stops

135mm
Line pairs per image height: 958/1016 | 973/1006
Contrast averaged: 96/83% | 100/85%
Distortion: 1.2% | 0.1%
Vignetting: 0.3/0.1 f-stops | 0.3/0.1 f-stops

200mm
Line pairs per image height: 946/1004 | 951/1010
Contrast averaged: 99/81% | 95/83%
Distortion: 0.9% | 0.2%
Vignetting: 0.6/0.1 f-stops | 0.6/0.1 f-stops

[SketchySmurf]

those numbers do look close...

although i'm wondering if the IS and VR are worth twice the price of the sigma...

[Jason25]

those numbers do look close...

although i'm wondering if the IS and VR are worth twice the price of the sigma...
If it's mission-critical, then probably. For a hobbyist, probably not :)

[erichlund]

If it's mission-critical, then probably. For a hobbyist, probably not :)
Spoken like a man who has never used a VR lens. :rolleyes:

I'm of the opinion that if you can afford the VR and you want to be able to take low light static shots without the bother of a tripod (like in a museum, where they often won't let you use one and flash is forbidden), then VR is godsend, whether you are a pro or a hobbiest. It's not about who, but what type of shot you want to get.

If you can't afford VR, and the tripod / monopod option is not available, there are trees, walls, chairs, pillars and poles, all of which make great makeshift supports for when nothing else is available.

That said, even though my 18-200 has VR, I'm spending a ton of money on a near top of the line tripod setup, because I believe using a tripod is always going to provide superior results versus VR.

[Jason25]

Spoken like a man who has never used a VR lens. :rolleyes:

I'm of the opinion that if you can afford the VR and you want to be able to take low light static shots without the bother of a tripod (like in a museum, where they often won't let you use one and flash is forbidden), then VR is godsend, whether you are a pro or a hobbiest. It's not about who, but what type of shot you want to get.

If you can't afford VR, and the tripod / monopod option is not available, there are trees, walls, chairs, pillars and poles, all of which make great makeshift supports for when nothing else is available.

That said, even though my 18-200 has VR, I'm spending a ton of money on a near top of the line tripod setup, because I believe using a tripod is always going to provide superior results versus VR.
I guess I should have clarified. I just meant that if you're a hobbyist and can't afford a VR lens, there are ways around it, as you pointed out. VR certainly has its place, not trying to downplay it at all :) If I had the extra grand to burn, hell yes I'd buy the 70-200 VR :D

[Jamie.RN]

Jason and George - thank you soooooo much for your input! Awesome!

coldrain & erichlund - I truly appreciate your opinions, especially the comparison/study. I've seen both of your posts before, so I know you guys are pretty well-informed and photologically (is that a word) experienced. But, what do you think about my questions, ie. the price drop, 200mm zoo shots, HSM, etc??? ;)

[coldrain]

Yes, the HSM is Sigma's version of USM and AF-S. The motor is fast and silent, it will allow fast focussing.

Will you get close enough in the zoo? Depends on HOW close you want to get... but these lenses are so sharp at 200mm that you can crop when needed and still have a good result.

Here are three examples (not cropped) of my Canon 70-200 f4 L (optically same kind of lens, but quite a bit less heavy).

[coldrain]

Long enough to reach giraffes...

[coldrain]

And the 70-200 is long enough to reach to the back of a large bird cage.

[rawpaw18]

You may notice some price drop on this lens with the new macro version released. I would not expect anything drastic, because this is still a very capable 2.8 lens. Even at the $724 price, it is a steal versus the Nikon($1600-$1700), even though it doesn't have OS.

I would like to see the price of the macro, to see how much more I have to save. 180cm down to 100cm throughout the entire zoom range, cool.

Coldrain, it is very nice to see you post some photos. I always look to you for numbers and tech info but you can shoot too! Nice shot of the owls.
-Rich

[erichlund]

Love the shot with the bears.

At a big zoo like the San Diego Zoo, which gives a very large space for the residents to move around, 200 is sometimes a bit short, but you can make do even in the largest enclosures. I would expect that the lens you are looking at can take teleconverters, so you should be able to extend the reach of the lens for those few shots where you need it, a lot less expensively than getting another lens.

[Jamie.RN]

Awesome! Good information! Thanks! :D I'm thinking this WILL definitely be my next purchase.

[Jamie.RN]

Oooooh, one more question - Is Sigma4Less a reputable dealer?

And, just thought I'd throw this in for the heck of it...:D
Kanuken
http://midsouthgreyhound.com/images/nukey.JPG

[Jason25]

I haven't ordered from them yet, but I've heard nothing but good things :)

[tekriter]

Thanks. Just found it on thier website. Released 3 days ago. Wow, quite a difference in min focus. Hopefully they further improved an already great lens.

If you buy me one I'll let you know

:D

[Jason25]

coldrain,

Those are some very nice shots! I really like the one with the owls. That's one lens I would love to have :)

[George Riehm]

Oooooh, one more question - Is Sigma4Less a reputable dealer?


I used them for my 24-70 f/2.8 and the service was quick and easy. Price was the lowest I found by $45 and unlike the other place it was in-stock. Ordered on a Wednesday afternoon and received Friday morning using 2 day air. Shipping costs are within normal boundries as well.

One transaction... Highly recommended.